Privacy not Prism legal challenge
The European Court has completed its preliminary examination of the case and has communicated it to the British government, asking it to justify how GCHQ's practices and the current system of oversight comply with the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention. The court has also given the case a rare priority designation. The government now has until 2 May to respond, after which the case will move into the final stages before judgment.
Thanks to the generosity of over 1400 people, we met and exceeded our first fundraising target in just 48 hours and raised £27,279. This covered the costs of the first stage of our legal challenge against unlawful government surveillance of our digital communications, and also helped maintain and develop this site.
The speed with which people sent in donations shows how strongly the public cares about mass surveillance. We hope politicians will note the depth of feeling on this issue.
We're now fundraising for a new target of £40,000 towards the legal costs of the next stage of the case.
Thank you again for your support.
Recent disclosures that the government routinely taps, stores and sifts through our internet data have alarmed experts and internet users alike. It is alleged that the government has used the US's PRISM programme to access data on British citizens stored by US internet corporations. Through its own TEMPORA programme, the government is alleged to tap into the sub-ocean cables that carry the UK's and the EU's internet activities around the world and stores and sifts through that data, even if it is an email or a call between two British or EU citizens. Furthermore, the UK has granted the US National Security Agency unlimited access to this data.
These practices appear to have been authorized by government ministers on a routine 'rolling' basis, in secret. Existing oversight mechanisms (the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal) have failed. The legislation that is supposed to balance our rights with the interests of the security services is toothless.
That is why Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, English PEN and Constanze Kurz have taken the unusual step of instructing a legal team to pursue legal action on our behalf and on behalf of all internet users in the UK and EU. First, our lawyers wrote to the government demanding that it accepts that its authorization practices have been unlawful and that it consult on a new, transparent set of laws for the future. The government refused and invited us to submit a case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. But the Tribunal is a creature of the very statutory regime which has failed and would not offer an effective remedy. It is unable to rule that the legislative regime breaches our privacy rights, it is conducted largely in secret and there is no right of appeal. The European Court of Human Rights has previously decided that this tribunal does not provide an effective remedy for privacy victims. So we will take our case directly to the European Court of Human Rights. It will decide whether the government's surveillance activities and the existing legislation sufficiently protect the privacy of UK and EU internet users.
Learn more about the case (includes full documents)
Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, English PEN and German internet campaigner Constanze Kurz are challenging the UK's activities before the European Court of Human Rights. Our lawyers will have to fight every step of the way. We have raised our legal fees but you can still help fund our campaign costs.